Si vous voulez vraiment énerver un diplomate français, dites lui qu'il va devoir parler anglais à l'ONU, où le français reste l'une des deux langues officielles en activité.

Représentant généralement courtois de la France auprès des Nations
Unies, Gérard Araud, a brièvement perdu son sang froid durant une
conférence de presse des Nations Unies quand il s’est avéré que  les
techniciens de l’ONU n’avaient pas  fourni d’oreillettes permettant une
traduction en temps réel du français à l'anglais. Araud, qui assure la
présidence tournante du Conseil de Sécurité ce mois-ci, a tapé du poing sur la
table, croisé les bras et tapoté des doigts impatiemment.

Il a d’abord refusé les demandes de la presse de poursuivre la
conférence en anglais, une langue qu'il maitrise. « Je ne parle pas
anglais, un point c'est tout », a-t-il déclaré en anglais avant d’ajouter,
cette fois en français : « Soyons sérieux, ce n'est pas comme ca que
ca fonctionne. Il y a 6 langues dans cette organisation, on parle ces six
langues. C'est  inacceptable. »

Quand
il devint évident que les oreillettes n'arriveraient pas, Araud a rapidement
retrouvé son calme et son sens de l'humour, et proposa un compromis: il
répondrait aux questions des journalistes anglophones en anglais et aux journalistes
francophones en français.

"C’est
avec plaisir que je répondrai aux questions en espagnol, en chinois, en français
et en anglais", a-t-il plaisanté.

Reproduit
avec la permission de Foreign Policy www.foreignpolicy.com.
Copyright
2010 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive LLC.

France Defends Use of French as
Language of Diplomacy

Confronted with the increasing use of English, French officials are pushing for
the continued use of French as a diplomatic language at the UN and other
international institutions. Concerns about the declining use of the language
were recently voiced when the French multilingual ambassador to the UN, Gerard
Araud, refused to use English in outlining the program for France's presidency
of the UN Security Council. Former French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin
took a similar position in Brussels, where over the past 10 years the European
Union has embraced English as its standard working language. French is still
designated the working language of the European Commission, but its use is
flagging. Others support the use of English as the working language of
diplomacy, seeing it as a tool that could improve the cohesion of the EU.
"English has become a sort of modern day Latin and a rather practical one
on top of it—why resist its ascendancy?" asked French lobbyist Jacques
Lafitte.
Source: American Translators Association

From "Paris Declares War of Words to Keep French as Language of
Diplomacy"
Financial Times (United Kingdom) (02/08/10) Morris, Harvey; Pignal, Stanley

President Sarkozy vigorously defends French against the onslaught of English but uses some folksy French expressions that would have Victor Hugo turning in his grave.

On the occasion of the International Day of the Francophonie, which took place on March 21, the French President delivered a speech of unusual gusto in favor of spreading the French language throughout the world. At a reception held at the Elysée for 400 guests from the Francophone world, the President denounced the snobbism (or snobbery or snobbishness) of French-speaking diplomats who chose to express themselves in English.

“I say what I think. This is not something we can’t change. The Francophonie is a priority for French diplomacy, and all French diplomats should believe that. They are so happy to speak English. If they don’t speak French, why should be expect others to do so.” With a touch of irony, Sarkozy proclaimed the snobbism of those who believe that they show themselves to be intelligent or modern by always choosing English. “We have nothing against English”, he said, “but we want French to remain an international language.”

Sarkozy recently requested his personal representative to the Francophonie, former Prime Minister Raffarin, to visit the principal international organizations in order to reclaim the status of French. "Every concession we make will bring another in its wake and [French will] go down the slippery slope to surrender". He condemned the activities of UN representatives who serve in French-speaking countries “without knowing a word of our language.”

Sarkozy strongly suggested that the President of the European Commission, Mr. José Manuel Barroso, should not confine himself to responding in French to questions put to him in French, but should also deliver important speeches in French.

The President’s speech was picked up by the New York Times, in an article entitled "Pardon My French"  introducing its readers to Eric Zemmour, a journalist for Figaro Magazine and RTL, who has written “French Melancholy” (“Melancolie francaise”), just published by Fayard. 

Mr. Zemmour is quoted as saying: “The end of French political power has brought the end of French. Now even the French elite have given up. They don’t care anymore. They all speak English.”

Another Frenchman resigned to the growing pervasiveness of English is lobbyist Jacque Lafitte, who is quoted as saying “"English has become a sort of modern-day Latin and a rather practical one on top of it—why resist its ascendancy?"

Mr. Zemmour and Mr. Lafitte should heed the words of Mr. Sarkozy, who regards the process as reversible.

Meanwhile, Mr Sarkozy himself has been criticized by Le Monde for his choice of words in two public incidents in which he spoke in language that was hardly Molierien. The article, dated April 22, is entitled “Après "casse-toi pauv' con", le "fais pas le malin, toi".

For the former expression, the English equivalent might be  “Beat it, asshole”, or “Piss off, you loser” [or “you jerk”] or “butt out, meathead”; while for that of the latter, a rough translation would be  “don’t be a smart-arse*” (UK usage) or  a “smart ass” (USA usage), or a “wise-guy”;  while the addition of the familiar second-person “toi” adds an extra dose  of disrespect. 

One humorist at Radio Suisse Romand has produced a video clip containing an impersonation of Presidents De Gaulle, Giscard d'Estaing, François Mittérand and Jacques Chirac using similar language.

Perhaps we can expect to hear the President, as the embodiment of French culture and the defender of the purity of the French language, use some of these expressions:

" J'suis en pit ", " Lui, c'est un 100 % roro ", " J'ai invité mes sauces au barbecue ", " Laisse tomber, il a toyé tout le monde ! ", " Aujourd'hui je rince un grec ", " Je suis yomb de toi ".

For another view of Sarkozy’s language, see « Sarkozy mot a mot – La Rhétorique du President »

———————

* A « smart arse/ass» is a vulgar version of the term “Smart Alec”, meaning a person who is a smug know-all, someone “too clever by half”. According to one theory, the expression originated with Alec Hoag, a New York confidence trickster. According to another theory, “Smart Alec” is one of several names, such as Clever Dick, used as catchwords to describe people who are conceited, self-opinionated or ostentatiously and irritatingly knowledgeable.

Jonathan Goldberg

By Jacquie By
Bridonneau, 2BTraduction, Member
of the American Translators Association and of Trans'missions Europe

No, this is not a variation on the “Show and Tell”
activities we all conducted when we were in grade school. Nor is it some kind
of new poker game, as it may sound like. Don’t
Ask, Don’t Tell is a catch-phrase coined in the United States under the
Clinton Administration to encapsulate US military policy regarding the
admission of gays or lesbians into the fighting forces.  The policy it reflected (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Harass, Don’t Pursue in its full name)
was passed into Law back in 1994. This legislation achieved a compromise
between those wishing to maintain the policy of banning men and women with
same-sex or bisexual orientation and those who favoured admitting them to the
armed forces. Under the new legislation, gay and lesbian conscripts could no
longer be questioned about their sexual preferences (Don’t Ask), but were
prohibited from disclosing their sexual preferences (Don’t Tell) and would not
be discharged solely on the grounds that 
they were gay (Don’t Pursue).  Engaging
in sexual acts with members of the same sex would still be grounds for
discharge from the military.

The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual
person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any
homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes,
while serving in the United States armed forces. The "don't ask" part
of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a
service member's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though
credible and articulable evidence of homosexual behavior may cause an
investigation.

The roots of same-sex prohibition in the US armed
forces date back almost to the founding of the USA. It was intended to regulate
who could serve in the US army, and under what conditions, along racial and
sexual lines.  Way back in the
Revolutionary War, blacks were not allowed to serve in the Continental army,
and later, during the Civil War, they were also barred from military service,
even though there were many volunteers. 
These decisions were later reversed, especially when the British offered
freedom to slaves who agreed to serve.

As a consequence, more and more blacks entered
military service, but it took a long time for them to be treated as equals to
whites.  In World War I, African-Americans
usually did not fight alongside their white counterparts, and served in menial
jobs.  In World War II, there was often
segregation, with black units having black officers, but this situation
gradually changed as it was recognized that African-Americans could fight just
as well as their white fellow citizens. 
And this is where the DADT act comes in: 
it too reflected a growing liberalization of attitude on the part of the
military authorities.

In the early 80s however, this decision was reversed
by the Department of Defense (DOD) with a new policy that clearly stated that
homosexuality was incompatible with military service, leading to some 12,000
people being discharged for that reason. 
This of course, came as a huge financial cost to the national budget,  with severance pay and training of new
recruits, not to mention the loss of precious Arabic language translators and
interpreters.  By the end of the decade
however, advocates of gay and lesbian rights began to challenge this policy, until
finally President Clinton and his government reached his DADT compromise.  And compromise is the key word here – on one
hand, gay people could not be discharged just because they were gay, as long as
the sexual orientation of the person in question did not become known to the
authorities or to fellow-soldiers. The new  law never really worked properly, and it satisfied
no one.

President Obama, pledged to repeal DADT in  his presidential campaign pledge to repeal
this act and to remove all restrictions on the conditions under which gays and
lesbians could serve. In n his State of the Union address at the end of
January, 2010, openly called for the State to repeal this policy. “[We must]
repeal the law that denies gay and lesbian Americans the right to serve the
country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do,"
Obama said.

At the end of March, the Pentagon issued regulations
limiting the cases in which gays could  be dismissed from the US military, while
waiting for a congressional debate on this subject.  In this new situation, only high ranking
officers will be able to initiate and oversee investigations, and evidence may
no longer rely exclusively on hearsay.

Army Secretary, John McHugh did
however state: “Until Congress repeals ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ it remains the Law
of the land and the Department of the Army and I will fulfill our obligation to
uphold it.”  And the Secretary of
Defense, Robert Gates, who favors the eventual repeal of the ban on gays
serving openly in the military, has asked Congress to give troops a chance to
express their views as the Pentagon studies potential changes. He wants the
Pentagon to first finish its review of the effect of any potential changes and
develop an implementation plan.

For a view favoring
further liberalization, see the Huffington Post:

What the Changes to DADT Mean:
The Good, The Bad and the Politically Dangerous